Machiavelli’s The Princeis basically a blueprint of what a successful leader looks like. For the most part, I think Machiavelli’s work lays out what most people think of in terms of an effective leader in the highest position of power. The one, miniscule thing I did not agree with was his claim that a leader that comes into power through fortune has trouble maintaining their power. The entire monarchy in England disproves this; for nearly hundreds of years, England was ruled by a monarchy where the next seat on the throne was either given to someone in the family or someone who was designated by the monarch, barring conquest, of course.
Other than this claim, I found The Prince to be pretty reasonable. I was impressed with Machiavelli’s explanation of how a leader can be feared yet maintain the popularity of their people. Machiavelli asserts that if a leader had to be either loved or feared, it is better to be feared. When I read this at first, I thought this directly contradicts his claim that in order to be an effective ruler, one must have their people behind them. However, he explains that fear and absence of hatred can go together. If the ruler can exercise their power without infringing on the property or liberty of his citizens, this balance is possible. Machiavelli further clarified his point that being feared is more secure than being loved by explaining that being loved is up to his people and is out of his control. Conversely, being feared is up to the ruler and in his full control.
Lastly, a topic that we discussed in class resurfaced in this reading. Machiavelli recognized that it is difficult for a leader to have all the traits he described as essential to a successful rule. He maintains that it is really the perception of having these traits that is important. In talking about the 6 characteristics of charismatic leaders, we concluded that it’s the appearance of confidence that really matters, and it is unimportant whether or not the leader is actually confident.
I agree that some of his point seems off-base, but it’s important to note that machiavelli preceded many English monarchs. At the same time, I felt many of his assertions about how success can be determined based off how and who comes to power only accounted monarchies.
I was also initially confused by Machiavelli’s point that leaders can instill fear and still be effective in maintaining power. It is interesting to think that fear does not necessarily mean hatred but I struggled to think of an example of a a ruler that was feared and not also hated by their people. Maybe the “absence of hatred” is not because the people don’t hate their leader but because they are too afraid to admit their hatred. Leaders who instill fear have usually come from non-democratic societies who have less freedom of speech.
I completely agree with you, and would argue that coming into leadership through fortune is actually pretty effective. For example, the Kardashians are titans of the social media industry and used their fortune to become leaders.
I agree with this what you are saying, at the end of the reading it states basically that Men are in control of who they love, however fear is something that the “prince” or leader can instill and have complete control over. The idea that fear gives a monarchy a pseudo absolute power is much better for them than if they leave their fate up to the common people who may be “ungrateful”